Frequency and Predictors of Trauma Transfer Futility to a Rural Level I Trauma Center.

INTRODUCTION: Transfer of trauma patients whose injuries are deemed unsurvivable, often results in early death or transition to comfort care and could be considered misuse of health care resources. This is particularly true where tertiary care resources are limited. Identifying riskfactors for and predicting futile transfers could reduce this impact and help to optimize triage and management. METHODS: A retrospective study of interfacility trauma transfers to a single rural Level I rauma center from 2014 to 2019. Futility was defined as death, hospice, or declaration of comfort measures within 48 h of transfer without procedural or radiographic intervention at the accepting center. Multiple logistic regressions identified independent predictors of futile transfers. The predictive power of Mechanism,Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial pressure (MGAP), an injury severity score based on Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and systolic blood Pressure, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 3368 trauma transfers, 37 (1.1%) met criteria as futile. Futile transfers occurred among patients who were significantly older with falls as the most common mechanism. Age, Glasgow coma scale, systolic blood Pressure and Injury Severity Score were significant (P < 0.05) independent predictors of futile transfer. MGAP had a high predictive power area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC 0.864, 95% confidence interval 0.803-0.925) for futility. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion (1.1%) of transfers to a rural Level I trauma center met criteria for futility. Predictive tools, such as MGAP scoring, can provide objective criteria for evaluation of transfer necessity and prompt care pathways that involve pre-transfer communications, telemedicine, and/or patient centered goals of care discussions. Such tools could be used in conjunction with a more granular assessment regarding potential operational barriers to reduce futile transfers and to enhance optimization of resource utilization in low-resource service areas.

Geographic Coverage and Verification of Trauma Centers in a Rural State: Highlighting the Utility of Location Allocationfor Trauma System Planning.

BACKGROUND: Care at verified trauma centers has improved survival and functional outcomes, yet determining the appropriate location of potential trauma centers is often driven by factors other than optimizing system-level patient care. Given the importance of transport time in trauma, we analyzed trauma transport patterns in a rural state lacking an organized trauma system and implemented a geographic information system to inform potential future trauma center locations. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected on trauma ground transport during a 3-year period (2014 through 2016) from the Statewide Incident Reporting Network database. Geographic information system mapping and location-allocation modeling of the best-fit facility for trauma center verification was computed using trauma transport patterns, population density, road network layout, and 60-minute emergency medical services transport time based on current transport protocols. RESULTS: Location-allocation modeling identified 2 regional facilities positioned to become the next verified trauma centers. The proportion of the Vermont population without access to trauma center care within 60 minutes would be reduced from the current 29.68% to 5.81% if the identified facilities become verified centers. CONCLUSIONS: Through geospatial mapping and location-allocation modeling, we were able to identify gaps and suggest optimal trauma center locations to maximize population coverage in a rural state lacking a formal, organized trauma system. These findings could inform future decision-making for targeted capacity improvement and system design that emphasizes more equitable access to trauma center care in Vermont.